A question yesterday by a new user was shot to absolute pieces. I reviewed it this morning as it had some "flags" against it...

I was actually embarrassed at how the community treated this question (in particular a good number of pretty offensive comments that I have now deleted). I re-opened it (it had been killed as spam) - but the chances are that is another potential user lost through hostility.

Here's the original:

hi evryone

            im doing a sample in .net remoting.i want to knw is it possible to exchange data betn a computer in mi network to a computer in another network.

OK; the English isn't great; and unfamiliarity with the markdown formatting is to be expected - but it took me about 30 seconds to fix this:

I'm doing a sample in .NET remoting. I want to know is it possible to exchange data between a computer in my network to a computer in another network?

What I don't get is why the community members involved didn't just fix the question, which is otherwise "sound".

Is there anything we can do to encourage positive edits (on questions in particular, but answers too, I suppose)? Something like S+W, but more... perhaps the ability to upvote an edit, with badge(s) to match. In addition to encouraging positive edits, this also provides a route to reward the number of "editor" types on the site. I know it occasionally gets heated (edit-wars etc), but in general their efforts are purely constructive and greatly appreciated.

Additional: "edit" votes should contribute towards rep; after all, rep is defined as a measure of a member's involvement and trust on the site. If somebody is making lots of very good edits, then they are a: involved, and b: just as trustworthy as somebody posting good answers. You'd probably need the reverse too, though - downvote edits.

(I don't necessarily expect the newbies/OP etc to use the edit voting; I would expect that to be the rest of the community)


Upvoting edit is something i've been advocating for a while now. Both here and in a declined UV ticket. (it was declined for to much work with to little benefit)

I'm very much for this, this will create a subculture of editors where they look at edited questions and speculate over what kind of editing is good by up and down voting.

This will create a community driven rule on how to edit and what edits are good. Like we already have for answers.

  • Cheers - interesting thread. I wonder if there isn't a simple middle-group that provides 80% of the benefit with 10% of the effort... – Marc Gravell Jul 2 '09 at 8:37
  • I advocated this as well, also got rejected. stackoverflow.com/questions/228571/… – waffles Jul 2 '09 at 8:44
  • @Sam - I'm not sure that collaboration is the same thing... – Marc Gravell Jul 2 '09 at 9:08
  • @mark simple badge would be for X upvotes after an edit , prone to gaming but simple. – Jeremy French Oct 6 '09 at 12:07

I'd like to see the Strunk & White badge extended to recognize persistent editing with intent to improve - or a new badge to recognize continued efforts to improve questions (and answers). I can see that you'd probably not award it every 100 edits; more like every 1000, perhaps. But I know I spend time - quite a lot of time overall - fixing the grammar of questions and answers, or just fixing up trivia (like the persistent inability of people to press the shift key at the same time as the 'i' key).

Although a few questions are awful, and occasionally they are from people with high enough reputation scores to leave you wondering, most questions have some redeeming quality and can be fixed up to leave a semi-reasonable question.

I was surprised to find a user whose profile showed many (200+) questions, one answer, and 6 votes (2 up, 4 down). Said user has amassed some 1300 reputation points. That's an odd profile - and perhaps not one that is going to get to the upper end of the reputation league, though they've only been aboard under two months. I am sure that this non-contributory - or only somewhat contributory - technique should not be encouraged; indeed, I wonder whether there should be limits on the powers gained when the reputation comes predominantly from questions and not answers. In my opinion, someone who gains all their reputation points from asking questions has not demonstrated that they should be trusted to edit answers.

  • I can see that gaming the system - editing without improvement - could be a problem with any such badge. It would require careful handling. – Jonathan Leffler Jul 2 '09 at 14:42
  • We could watch for rollbacks and remove 'edit points' – Nathan Koop Jul 16 '09 at 14:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .